A painting that depicts President Barack Obama as a crucified Jesus Christ is prominently on display at a Boston community college art gallery.

I’m at a loss to describe this blasphemous idiocy, nor can I adequately describe how I feel about this. But, I can offer some quotes.

“The crucifixion of the president was meant metaphorically,” D’Antuono told Fox News. “My intent was not to compare him to Jesus.”

So the artist places a crown of thorns on Zero’s head and with Zero’s arms outstretched and the artist says “My intent was not to compare him to Jesus.” Clearly, that is a lie. The physical rendering makes the comparison obvious.

D’Antuono said the conservative media is trying to “promote the idea that liberals believe the president to literally be our savior” and has received e-mail messages that have been “anything but Christian-like.”

“But I accepted that it is their right to express themselves and hope that they now see it in their hearts to afford me the same right,” D’Antuono said, nothing that he had regretted canceling the event four years ago because “we should celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we are given the freedom to express ourselves.”

Yes, it is his right to do such things. It is also our right and obligation to express our objections to this horrible affront to the sensibilities of American Christians and Christians world wide.

It was originally supposed to debut nearly four years ago at New York City’s Union Square. But that event was cancelled due to public outrage.

“I always regretted cancelling my exhibit in New York because I feel my First Amendment rights should override someone’s hurt feelings,” D’Antuono told Fox News. “We should celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we are given the freedom to express ourselves.”

Nice, this piece of idiocy is in a publically funded institution. As to his rights, it is true, rights do supersede someone’s hurt feelings. But, as citizens of this nation, we would expect a little prudence to accompany the exercise of rights. For instance, we all have rights of expression, but because we have these rights doesn’t mean we should use them in a manner D’dumbass has. I wonder if this person has the fortitude to make a similar depiction of Mohammed? If not, then this isn’t an exercise of expression, it is an exercise of offense and cowardice.

Would the college allow a less blasphemous and more serious rendering of our Christ? I doubt it. So, even on the college’s part, this too, is simply an exercise of offense and cowardice. It’s an expression of hate, and when the expression is reciprocated, people like D’dumbass pretend hurt.

So, yes, I support his rights to expression. But, I’m disgusted that his cowardice and desire to offend is what is expressed. How did this nation become so full of worms?

How exactly does this offend millions of people? And like wise when all these Christ references are put into various public ceremonies should the millions of agnostic and atheists feel similarly offended?

How is this difficult to understand? Freedom of expression, it should be exercised both ways. The depiction of Zero as Christ is an intentional affront the the billions of Christians, world wide. They should express their reaction to the affront.

Do people really look at it and think long and hard about what an “affront” this is (or is that just the extreme ideologues who’ve been unhappy since the election and need something to bitch about?) I’m betting normal people just look and say “oh that’s silly/stupid…moving on!”

Yes Kim implied that atheists would only be offended if they perceived all these public Christ references as a “threat to their belief” thus it should follow that Christians view this picture as a “threat to their belief” and hence the offense they feel.

Yes Kim implied that atheists would only be offended if they perceived all these public Christ references as a “threat to their belief” thus it should follow that Christians view this picture as a “threat to their belief” and hence the offense they feel.

‘Well LeftinBrooklyn made some valid points – the rest of you are like the yappy little lap dogs coming to bark at the door, but with nothing to substantial to offer (go figure!) ‘

Ah, PhD…for the first 6 words, I thought we were making progress. Then back to the ‘yappy little dog’ insults and attacks at those you disagree with, blows it all up again. Again, you become an example of the negatives these posts address.

Valid points are inseparable from your points. All others offend you. Your attack on them reveals how little you would defend them, despite that offense. You come here to target the beliefs you choose to target. Like an artist chooses subject matter.
And you use the tolerance shown to you and your opinions in this forum to attack that very idea of tolerance. If this was your blog, how quickly would most of us have been banned? Would we have gotten past our first comment?

There are no levels of tolerance. It’s all or none. The whole point of this post.

Oh Brooklyn…If I only wanted to talk with people who thought the same way I did I could find lots and lots of other blogs here. The majority of the time I enjoy bantering about with Suyts and yes we both enjoy a bit of sarcasm. I thought we were making some progress with you. Did you find my first post to be so rude and offensive. It seems you didn’t as you wrote a relatively thoughtful reply. However the yappy dogs did not even try to contribute anything useful. As usual and as happens any *rare* time someone visits this board with an alternative view of the world they immediately launch into attack, which for me is fun and laughable. So spare me the lectures – k?😉

You could try, as I mentioned, a Mohammed version of such a picture and see how long you lasted without bodyguards. That would be useful empirical data whether such a picture is insulting or not to a particular religion.

You are safer insulting Christians as Luke 6:27ff and similar passages are quite explicit and decidedly less bloodthirsty that other religions’ equivalent doctrines. You might consider researching why this is the case.

Quite honestly Kimmie that’s why I consider myself agnostic. I would hate to have the same arrogance that the Christians have in KNOWING for sure what is out there. I’m on the side of 99.9% improbable Christianity as told in the bible😉

Haha oh suys that’s merely your non-objective ideological mind talking. George W Bush will certainly be judged as one of the worst presidents in history and you’ve probably got a picture of him on your wall….Come back to reality buddy!

Yes. He ensured there was not another domestic act of terrorism on this soil. This is something Barry failed at. Also, in the aggregate, W’s economic performance exceeds Zero’s. This is demonstrable. Continuing,….. W didn’t allow radical Islamists to take hold of the several vulnerable nations which have now moved in that direction.

Oddly, W’s record debt accumulated is an accomplishment compared to Zero’s. On the trajectory W had, we would, today, have 2-3 $trillion less debt than today. We would have about 15 million less people on food stamps, and the recession would be over by now. As bad as W was, Barry is infinitely worse. The bad part is, it is demonstrable, and can be quantified.

Hahaha! You talk about politics the same way you talk about science! All from one side and no looking at reality or fact.

Let’s first acknowledge that any growth under Bush was merely a debt-fueled mirage which exploded on his way out of office. How much has the economy lost now because of it? And how much has the debt increased because of it? How much did his unfunded wars cost? How many weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq? Those are quantifiable!

Today seniors are paying less for prescriptions. People can’t be thrown off their health plans when they become sick and actually need their plans. Kids under 26 can stay on their plan. Maybe soon job lock will start to lessen so that employees can freely move and feel confident to take risks with new entrepreneurial ventures. The economy would certainly benefit from that. Oh that discriminatory policy is gone from the military – now gays who die for their country won’t be kicked out because of who they are. Oh hey we’re gaining jobs now and not losing 750,000 per month as we were under Bush. Bush wasn’t bad on job growth he did add a lot of public sector jobs, but Obama’s got him beat on private sector jobs added during his administration.

LMAO, uhmm because I didn’t want to sound mean? Zero has equaled W’s debt. It took Zero 1/2 the time to do so. The economic performance of the equal debt accrued is sick and sad. Zero has failed to equal W’s economic “debt fueled” growth even by doubling the deficit.

Uhmm, no, that’s not correct. I have demonstrated that this wasn’t correct over and over again. Belief isn’t a substitute for facts. Empirical evidence trumps thought and theory. Read the post I referenced. Try to argue it if you can. Invite friends to argue it. Doesn’t matter, I’ve shown what is true.

Hahah it’s been shown multiple times that Bush’s deficits have contributed hugely to Obama’s current deficits. If you haven’t came to that conclusion than you’re using denier science…When I have more time i’ll scrutinize and make fun of your work..right now i’m multitasking on grant writing – which is why I’m spending too much time here – boring!!!😀

No one here advocates “pure unadulterated capitalism”. That would leave the slower people behind. I believe most people here are a benevolent group of people. Mostly, they provide for the people who can’t. They simply wish we wouldn’t encourage people not to do. They wish their burden lighter from carrying so many who can’t.

Yes and we here obviously believe in failed theories of voodoo trickle down economics. We don’t believe that economic growth is actually HINDERED when huge income inequality exists such that 1% of the population controls more than 40% of all the wealth.

Ph, please study history a bit better. And, then understand what you should concern yourself with. Standard of living.

First of all, capitalist economies have worked to the point of where you are today. That wasn’t Karl Marx who innovated the assembly line.

What made the standard of living what it is today? Was it the failed concept of Marxism as Pravda recently pointed out? Or, was it the success of capitalism?

“Trickle down” as you wish to call it, has always worked. It has never failed society. Throughout history, it has always been capitalism which has improved the lot of society. Marxism, or socialism, has never failed to fail society. Millions have died in the name of the totalitarian collective. Under those conditions, human depravity knows no bounds.

Suyts do you understand that marginal rates on rich people have no effect on economic growth or do you simply pick and choose to believe things that match your ideological agenda? If you get those conservative fantasies out of your head then we’re on the same page.

PhDS – Perhaps you might explain why the Beatles left Harold Wilson’s UK for France and now rich Frenchies are leaving Hollande’s France for the UK. Your hypothesis is probably true globally, but certainly not on an individual nation basis. Rich people will take their capital to the locale where they can make the most money (if that’s what they want to do), which is why most garment production has now moved away from China. The countries who have now managed to attract such investment have higher growth rates than they did and the employees are better off than they were.

A mixed economy is a good thing. But only if sustainable. The current US fiscal position is as unsustainable as the USSR’s was. Too much expenditure not enough wealth generation supporting it. The only difference now is the Musks and Zuckerbergs won’t migrate themselves but they will migrate their tax affairs and investment, even if they back Obama. Which is why Bangalore is booming.

The world would be ‘way better off if all kids were taught at school how and why to calculate a NPV.

Suyts how did the US grow so well when marginal rates were 70-90%? If tax rates are so critical to growth why have these current ultra low rates not surpassed kind of growth we saw during these high tax rate years? The low rate years have actually seen LOWER growth than the high rate years!

As Warren Buffett says…If I call you in the middle of the night with a great investment tip, telling you i’m all in and i’m going to make us rich are you going to say “well let me see what the tax rate is, nope too high i’ll keep my money in my savings account”…

I didn’t read the study because it was rather long, US centric (since I’m an Aussie) and from the NYT server. I am also somewhat suspicious of public servants no matter the reputation of CRS (our Treasury used to have that reputation…). But I will read it now.

OK have now read Mr Hungerford’s study. See down below for more detail.

In short he can’t do statistics and appears to be a political hack. “Not statistically significant” is not “uncorrelated”. He comes to the opposite conclusion from what his own data is saying.

Our right party has refused to use our Federal Treasury for costings and analysis like this. They now use external economic consultancies. I predict your Republicans will be doing the same soon, as this report reminds me of similar stuff I’ve read from Treasury.

Not sure where to put this so put it here. PHD and Suyts did you actually watch the second (I think) presidential candidate debate?

There was strong bi-partisanship about how loopholes should be cut along with company tax rates. The question is why are the Dems and Reps not doing what they claim they want to do? Can either of you answer this question. I do not want to hear the answer because the other side is stopping it as this is bi-partisan. Seems to me like they both talk good at times and then do nothing as in reality they are the same on many issues.

If I may butt in. The short answer is Obama thinks he won a mandate. And is trying to force the issue. He has admitted that increasing rates do nothing for revenue, so he is trying to show who is boss.

It was Romney that was in agreement, not Boehner or Cantor. Hence the reason those 2 bozos have not been putting any of their skin into the game.

Kelly, you amaze me at times. You are very well informed about many things. How is it that you’re not current on the present debate?

Republicans have said they would consider increased revenue through tax reforms, such as closing loopholes, but they are opposed to tax rate changes on top incomes, which they say would barely put a dent in the budget.

Closing the loopholes, and in fact, dissolving deductions for the wealthy is the current Repub proposal. Dems want nothing to do with that, they insist on raising the tax rates.

You have to listen closely to the Dems to understand what they say. Giving lip service to closing loopholes is just that. Loopholes are the bread and butter of the Dems.

Suyts
I am just guessing nothing concrete has been said and no legislation forwarded. Romney went through his entire campaign not telling anyone what deductions. If my guess is correct then nothing is going to be done at the moment anyway. So if you can show me legislation forwarded or at least put to public discussion I agree I am wrong but until then it is just rhetoric.

Suyts
I will shoot that particular proposal down right now. The one on the CBS clip.

Utterly stupid. Add another 20 pages to your tax code (to start and will need many more pages to fill up the new loop holes created by not making it universal) to tax the rich and only on the second property which is non investment I am guessing. Without eliminating all deductions over time for personal purchases of consumer goods (that is what a big house is) it is pointless. So if I was a rich guy in the US and was against ever paying more tax my reaction would be ok then I will buy the neighbour and just make one big house no chance you will get more tax off me. A question is rent tax deductable? and if it is not then this unfairly dissadvantages the poor.

A complete phase out over a 10 or 20 year period of all deductions for interest paid on personal non-business assets is the way to go. This must be phased out over time if you do not want to create major shocks and last thing that is needed in the US is another shock to the housing market which it appears based on my limited information the Repbulican proposal would create.

In the end all this deduction does is encourage people to invest in a non-productive investment.

Kelly, eliminating deductions on a second home would be universal. Poor people rarely have the money to buy second homes. Yes, the deductions are unfair. The home owner deductions were placed to spur the housing industry. Second home purchases wouldn’t have much of an impact on this.

Typically, when the wealthy buy second homes, it is for the climate. South in the winter, north in the summer. So, the “big house” posit probably doesn’t apply in this case. It needn’t be 20 more pages. It could be just one line.

Kelly, your problem is you use common sense. You have to look at the tax code from a lawyers perspective. The more complicated it is, the more money they make. And they are a very powerful lobby within the democrat party.

Add to that the desire of the politicians (half of them lawyers who of course feel a professional courtesy to other lawyers and sharks – but then I repeat myself) to penalize people (against the constitution, so it has to be worded in legalese) and reward others, and you have a bill like Obamacare that was 75% new taxes (of the 2100 pages of the original bill).

Another point I have just thought of is that a real rich person can just move all the debt to the business and have no debt on the home but could use the home as security for the bank. So the main people it would attack is not the very rich (the 1%) maybe the people in the 60% to 80% top wealth bracket (the up and coming entrepreneurs) . Do I need to explain more why this is a bad proposal? Even using your own arguments about you should not attack those who are likely to create employment. This will raise far less than expected and that I am willing to bet on unless it is changed significantly to something like I would propose (actually eliminating it).

So do I very much. One parallel thing I can think of in Australia is our GST (Goods and Services Tax). With the goods part unprocessed food (including things like bread and cheese) and health are exempt. I have not formed and opinion on the health part but exempting unprocessed food strongly favours the wealthy in 2 ways, wealthy people eat less processed food (take aways and frozen dinners etc) and wealthy people will spend money on high value foods like lobster and prime beef etc. I don’t know why someone decided this would be good for the poor.

Phil
Just try to think of our respective tax laws as living things. Just like you might need a team of doctors to fix or try to fix a person with cancer a corporation needs a team of lawyers and accountants to keep or try to keep a large company alive.

Taxes are like a living thing. A virus. The basic nature of taxes is to support the people in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. The implementation of taxes is both a penalty and a pipe dream. It penalizes those not in power, and promises something to those who have not. The promise can never be kept, but the promise is continually made.

The report invokes “the holiday season” to warn Americans that “retailers can’t afford the threat of tax increases on middle-class families.” The truth is that no one can afford the tax increases called for by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Republicans warn that higher tax rates could throw our economy back into recession.

The report claims that those on the Left “have proposed to extend all the income tax cuts that benefit families who make less than $250,000 per year.” But what it doesn’t say is that Republicans want to leave ALL the Bush tax cuts in place. Their goal is to raise “revenues,” not by raising tax rates, but through job growth and significant tax reform, which would include eliminating certain exemptions and deductions.

The bottom line? Big government got America into its current economic mess. Growing an even bigger government is NOT going to get us out of it.

Except the tax hikes aren’t small and they aren’t just on the rich. With all the tax and fee increases, new regulatory costs, and filing costs that have hit, plus another huge round of hikes in 2013 and another round of increases again in 2014, I’ve made the decision that my company will cut back on expansion plans and hiring to maintain a safe cash flow and manageable COS budget.

My CPA estimates that your small tax increases amount to over $48,000 in tax increases and that was based on what we knew last year. We’re just starting to see the bigger picture for 2013 and 2014 now and it doesn’t bode well. Anyway, kiss another job or two goodbye with my company alone. With 27 million small businesses in the U.S. facing the same decisions to cut back in order to survive, you can be assured another four years of a political environment antagonistic towards small business growth will take its continuing negative toll on the economy.

I figure half of small businesses will make the decision to cut at least one job from the budget this coming year. That is a net loss of 13.5 million jobs that could have fed the economy. I’ll survive and keep food on my current employee’s tables but the man (or woman) I might have hired but can’t will need to go to Zero for their sustenance.

* It was not the fear of conservative violence that caused Ann Coulter’s speech to be canceled.
* It was a liberal who bit the finger off a man who disagreed with him on healthcare.
* It was Obama-loving Amy Bishop who took a gun to work and murdered co-workers.
* Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building after writing an anti-conservative manifesto.
* It was liberals who destroyed AM radio towers outside of Seattle.
* It’s liberals who burn down Hummer dealerships.
* It was progressive SEIU union thugs who beat a black conservative man who spoke his mind.
* It’s doubtful that a conservative fired shots into a GOP campaign headquarters.
* In fact, Democrats have no monopoly on having their offices vandalized.
* Don’t forget it was Obama’s friend Bill Ayers who used terrorism as a tool for political change. SDS is still radical, with arrests in 2007 and the storming of the CATO Institute in July 2008.
* It was a liberal who was sentenced to two years for bringing bombs and riot shields to the Republican National Convention in 2008.
* It was a liberal who threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated her Austin-based group that planned to bomb the RNC.
* It was liberals who assaulted police in Berkeley.
* It was liberals who intimidated and threw rocks through the windows of researchers.
# The two Black Panthers who stood outside polls intimidating people with nightsticks were probably not right-wingers.
# Every time the G20 gets together, it’s not conservatives who destroy property and cause chaos.

T cells are cool. In fact they simultaneously contribute to both the progression and regression of cancer as well as the prevention and induction of autoimmunity, the destruction of intra and extracellular pathogens and a whole host of other functions. Are they good guys or bad guys? Can’t live without em, but they might kill you!

Likewise agree T cells are cool although my current obsession is B cells since it is spring where I am😦

Sorry I can’t offer my thesis which I only have in hardcopy, though it was done on an early wordprocessor (my hons thesis was on a IBM golfball typewriter which I had to rent…). Which is probably no loss since somewhat ancient organometallic chemistry is unlikely to be especially interesting for anyone here. It was fun at the time, we only nearly burnt down our building once. Before you ask – it wasn’t my bottle of t-butyllithium.

It turns out that doing a google images search for “stalin jesus” yields NO depictions of the late communist leader as the saviour, yet “obama jesus” yields a mountain of material. This artist D’Antuono is actually part of the mainstream democratic movement.

While the communists of the USSR would have nothing to do with christianity – and therefore did not idolize their leader as a Jesus-like figure – we see here that democrat artists re-interpret christianity and insert their own leader into its context.

The only other older communist leader I can find that has been re-inserted into christianity like Obama is the mass murderer Che Guevara (who shares with Obama that his reproductions are often reduced to black and white or primary colors).

The desire of the atheist left for a saviour type figure is now so strong that even a Chicago politician with no achievements will do. (And any pretense will do like the silly reason d’Antuono gave) (all the other re-insertions of Obama into a religious context will surely have similar pretenses)

They would cherish a pile of horse dung if it were the only thing available.

The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth.

But in his Fig 3 he shows there is a very obvious negative correlation between tax rate and investment rate. Which is intuitive – remember why the phrase ‘Celtic Tiger’ came to be used. But what he said to Fig 3 was the correlation is “not statistically significant”. That is not “uncorrelated”, all it means is there is insufficient data or other complicating factors. Which there most certainly is since the era of ‘hot money’ is only about 25 years old.

Its exactly the same trick that Phil Jones tries to pull with the temperature record.

He also does nowhere look at actual Federal revenue, which has been flat as a % of GDP since WW2. Which means the other assumption that increasing tax rate increases revenue has not been addressed in his study, despite it being the essence of the 2nd sentence of the Summary (p2). In other words raising the tax rate whether capital gains or income almost certainly won’t much change the revenue amount.

I could go on to much more detail, like that he fails to look at the US as part of the planet, with mobile money, companies and people. Or that high income people adjust their tax affairs to the most appropriate scale – such as corporatizing and charging fees to companies rather than receiving salaries. Which is probably why the Fed revenue is so flat.

This is a rather ideological and superficial study. It reads as written by a person of the left. I suspect your CRS is increasingly politicised, which is no surprise given the general politics of public servants.

I should add that I have formal quals in stats and have done similar multivariate statistical analysis for a multibillion dollar corporate project (which was externally audited…and passed, yay!). Even have a published stats paper as a sideline from the usual chemistry.

One other thing. phD probably is very young and has never known what the tax rates and brackets were like prior to 1982, nor does he know that back in those days of 91% top marginal rates, not a single person paid them and that we got the Alternative Minimum Tax because there were so many deductions, exclusions, credits, offsets, etc that several ‘millionaires’ legally owed no Federal income tax. That is partly why the Federal tax take is roughly between 15% and 20% of *nominal* GDP since the end of WW2. Taxes are paid in current nominal dollars earned in the current nominal dollar economy. On top of that, the top heavy nature of the system guarantees that receipts will drop faster than the economy does in recessions/depressions and that receipts will grow faster than the economy does in booms. You can’t ‘Tax the Rich’ without also taxing the ‘Poor’. You can’t help the ‘Poor’ by harming the ‘Rich’, phD. It is time you grew up and quit putting your religious belief in government. Oh yeah there is a God, whether you accept Him or believe in Him. The evidence is all around you.

“ThePhDScientist says:
November 27, 2012 at 11:18 pm
As Warren Buffett says…If I call you in the middle of the night with a great investment tip, telling you i’m all in and i’m going to make us rich are you going to say “well let me see what the tax rate is, nope too high i’ll keep my money in my savings account”…”

The tax rate influences which investments make a profit. The tax rates influence whether someone can afford to take that job, and whether someone can afford to create that job, and whether someone can create to expand that business, and do that investment.

Fortunately they’re about to be replaced by Frenchies fleeing their 75% tax rate. Nowadays capital and rich people are mobile. Thirty years ago they were much less mobile. In the time of WW2 to be mobile capital needed a 75mm gun, armor plate and tracks. Things change.

Good list, also it was not conservatives that made a video of “climate denirers” being blown up.
It was not a conservative President that said. ‘If they bring a knife… we bring a gun.” Or told his “followers” to vote for “revenge.

@ Bruce, thank you for taking the time to completely trounce PHD. Do not expect him to stick around and actually dialogue on any useful level. He had no real game.

Back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, one of the biggest industries in the US was Tax Shelters. It was a dodge for the rich so they did not have to pay tax rates in excess of 70-90%. CEOs were not paid much in salary (as evidenced by the continued drum beat of the left) as it was taxed away. So companies found other ways to compensate them. Buying them houses, cars, even jets. Reagan changed all that. While most remember his tax cuts, many (especially liberals) forget that he also wiped out hundreds of tax deductions that virtually destroyed the tax shelter industry. He made those non-cash perks taxable (and that is why you pay tax on life insurance over $50k). That was the trade off he made to lower the rates.

So now that those deductions are gone, ignorant liberals want everyone to think that raising the rates is not bad since “they were high before”. They were high, no one paid them, and there were other ways the executives were compensated. Those other ways no longer exist. But as soon as the rates go up, other ways will be found.

Unlike politicians and government employees, the rich are not stupid. They got rich by being smart. And they will find another way. One only has to look at Apple to see there are ways. But the stupid never learn that the smart are not stupid.

Happy to get you my thesis Jimmy. You excited to learn about Foxp3+ regulatory T cell differentiation? Can I read yours?
<<

In typical troll fashion, you’re reneging on your promise to post your (is it a thesis now?) dissertation. I was not in the original conversation, so my advanced degree did not enter into the equation–until now.

I guess you’re hoping that I might not have an advanced degree, so somehow that lets you off the hook. But I do have an advanced degree.

My degree is in software engineering. Instead of a final paper, we had a final project. There are documents: program specs, design specs, testing results, source code, and so on. Those documents belong to the University and the project sponsor. However, I can point you to a paper written by the sponsor where our team gets credit. I can also tell you the parts of the paper that were our project team’s input.

The idea that I have to show mine before you show yours is nonsense really. You stated your paper was all things to all people. I don’t see how Evolution fits into it, unless it’s evolution of T cells. Some of your comments about Evolution are extremely naive.

If this is the new deal, then show us yours, and I show you mine. (I’m not holding my breath.)

Sorry I missed the original exchange, but reading your reply is hilarious! He sounds so childish. I wonder if he is really just comparing tally whackers, and not anything he has produced (I suspect God made him childless on purpose).

Warren Buffett would disagree with you. A small tax increase on the rich will have no effect on the economy.
<<

Another Democrat talking point–you’re just full of them. When Buffett said he paid more taxes than his secretary, nobody really asked the right question–how much does Warren Buffett’s secretary make?

She is estimated to earn between $200,000 and $500,000 a year. It’s not your typical secretary. Because her income is mostly in the form of a salary, she can’t make the kinds of deductions that her boss can.

Obama and the Democrats aren’t addressing the issue of the tax disparity, but are going to raise taxes on the evil rich. That would be Warren Buffett’s secretary. So Warren Buffett will pay about the same in taxes, while his secretary will pay more.

The reason why most of the evil rich are Democrats is that they get special deals in the tax code. The Democrats aren’t going to do anything to hurt their primary bread and butter.

Another lie is his insinuation that Buffet claimed the increase would have no effect on the economy. Buffet is a very smart man. Smart enough not to pontificate on issues he knows he knows not. Any tax has an impact on the economy. Taxes are a necessary evil to ensure a safe working and living environment for the entrepreneurs and their employees. But a tax reduces their ability to grow the business and hire more.

It is not that it has NO effect, but WHAT effect. Buffet never commented on the effect, only that he should pay more. Economics 101 clearly shows that any tax is a detriment to economic growth. The larger the tax, the larger the detriment.

Buffett regularly lobbies for higher estate taxes. He also has repeatedly bought up family businesses forced to sell because the heirs’ death-tax bill exceeded the business’s liquid assets. He owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses.

Buffett Profits from Government Spending…

Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics.

If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth.

Let’s call a spade a spade: Warren Buffett, successful multi-billionaire that he is, is a lobbyist representing himself and his own monied interests. There’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but let’s not let liberals get away with this cunning charade of noblesse oblige when the full picture reveals that they have much to gain from their superficial “generosity.”